Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-10-03
LIQUOR TRAFFIC
Two ImpnvtSnt Supreme COURT Oases In
V@lviDE vha Validity CT 2rohlb
itory Statutes.
Cincinnati Enquirer.

WASHINGTON, Sept. 20.-AmOng ths
most Important cases now on the docket
OF tie United States Supreme court ere
TWO which come Up from Kansas ana iii
nois involving the validity OF statutes Of
Kansas AMI Iowa regulating or prohibit
iEg me liquor traffic. Both OF these
cases we're argued at the last term, and
re still held under advisemept. They have
not yeJ been decided, but PROBABLY will
be Ut no distant dry. They affect the
liquor traffic throughout the Union, and
the various state laws which have been
enacted for the purpose Of regulating or
rather destroying it. In the case
coming up from Kansas Senator
Yes. OF Missouri m2de an argument ia
opposition 10 the state PROHIBITION law
waich PIaS reg2rded,at the time as one Of
remarkable power ana force of argument.
This Kansas case is m2iLtsiued upon the
relations u Tuft, assistant Attorney Gen
e-al, against Herman Sie2cld and JOSEPH
Hageilu, pGrt1Grs IN business ct Atchis0u,
Kan, VINO were owners OF g brewery and
manufacturers ard sellers Of beer, upon
the allegation inst they mad violated the
laws Of Kansas OF February 10, 1881, and
March /, 1855 The petition Uf the state
officer Wgs 70 bsve the brewery Of the de-
PENDANTS declared = COmmOl nuisance,
and tho defendants eniJined ft0m using
re same Tor the manufacture, sale or
gitl OF yilous, EpirituOus or t5rmentel
liquors. The defendants admitted
their ownership and use the properly I0c
the purposes stated, but claim thot the
proceeding is in conflict with the C51sti-
tuition of The United states, article +, ald
also section l Of article IA; end they say
that the action of the stste amOunts TO &
practical c0nfscation Of their property,
acquired by them prior TO the purchase Of
the same, and that it would bankrupt and
! ruin them. The cause wss transferred
| from the state court 10 the United States
circuit court, and Circuit judge Brewer
decided.it in favor cf the defendants and
! against the state q Kansas. TIE opinion
OF Judge Brewer IS similar tbat IL the
Watruff case, watch IS one OF striking
ability. The statement Of the facts in
that case says: Between 1870 and
1874 the defendants constructed
q brewery in Lawrence, Kan.
The building, machinery and fixtures
were designed and adapted for the max
ing of beer and nothing else. For such
| purpose they We're worth so, 000, FOR
eng other purpose not to exceed $1,000.
| At the time Of the erection OF the build
! ing, and up to 1880, the making Of beer
was as tree from tax, license or other re
| striction as the milling Of -four. Ii laat
! year q constitutional amendment Wss
adopted prohibiting the manufacture Vi
| beer except for medical, scientific and
mechanical purposes. IL 1881 and 1886
laws were enacted 10 carry this pr0hibi-
/ lion into eject. Under these laws q
permit was essential for the manu-
I iacture for The excepted purposes.
To tie oefendants this permit was
refused. "A INJUNCTION was tlereupon
sued ont from the District court enj0in-
| ing defendants absolutely frc>1 the man
! ufacture of beer. Thus N serict con-
formity to the laws Of the stste, TIE de-
PENDANTS are prohibited from using their
| property :oI the purposes for which alone
If is designed, adapted snd valuable,
and required without compensation t.
surrender S45, 0C0 Of value which they
h&1 acquired under every solemn unIim-
tied guaranty CT protection TO property
which constitutional declaration and the
underlying thought OF just and stable
| government could give"
This case runs on all fouTs with the
seton Of Kansas, now about to be re
viewed By the Supreme court Of the
| United States.
The second c6se comes up from the
United States Circuit court for the North
ern district of Illinois ard is tbat CT
George and Fred Bowman VS.. Chicago
and Northwestern RailcoEd Company,
growing out Of the refusal Of the railroad
company to transport to appellants at
Marshslltown, Iowa, 5000 barrels OF beer,
the defendants pleading as an excuse for
non-pertornence OF duty as common GER
riers statute CT Iowa, passed April ;,
1856, requiring corporations in sucn cases
where liquors ere transported TO have q
certificate from the auditor Of the county,
under seal, certifying that the conslgnee
is authorized to sell such liquors. This
certificate wss net furnished. Il is 81
legged by appellants that the Iowa lsW is
in darogation of article Of the
Federal constitution, which declares
that Congress shsll have power to regu-
late commerce with foreign nations, and
| that this power is exclusive. The defend